project_delete

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the description's job is to add specifics — and it does, enumerating exactly what is destroyed (environments, credentials, test history). It stops short of saying the deletion is permanent/irreversible or that a matching expectedProjectName is the guard, which would have pushed this to a 5.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with the destructive action front-loaded and the cascade consequences parenthesized immediately after. Nothing can be removed without losing information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a destructive tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential thing an agent needs — what disappears. The safety mechanics are carried by the schema (confirm, expectedProjectName) and annotations (destructive). Only the permanence/recoverability question is left unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (projectId, expectedProjectName, confirm) are already documented in the schema, including the confirm-must-be-true requirement. The description adds no extra meaning about how these interact with the cascade, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb+resource ("Delete a project workspace") and immediately clarifies the blast radius by naming the resources that go with it (environments, credentials, test history). That scope note is what separates it from the narrower env_delete sibling, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this versus env_delete, project_rename, or project_export, and no stated preconditions or exclusions. An agent must infer from the word "cascades" that this is a last-resort operation.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.